85. Marces, Sr. vs. Arcangel, A.M. No.

RTJ-91-712, 9 July 1996

Topic: New Code of Judicial Conduct

Facts:
Complainant, Ben Marces is a 61y.o. retiree, married to one Ruth Jovellar and has 5 children. The
family resided in Davao City. Spouses Wilfredo and Flordeliza Cañas moved into complainant’s
neighborhood. They became the nearest neighbors of complainant, houses being 45 meters apart. A
domestic helper of Cañases sought help for alleged maltreatment she received from her employers.
Complainant, who was then the incumbent Purok Leader, referred the matter to barangay authorities.
The dispute was resolved but the relation of Marces and Cañases became strained.

One time, Mrs. Cañas had an exchange of words with Mrs. Marces and the latter’s daughter, during
which they hurled invectives at each other. It was triggered by a fight between the turkeys of the
family.
The following day, Mrs. Cañas, with her sister and a neighbor, boarded a passenger jeepney despite
the fact that there were no more seats available because complainant was riding that vehicle. Mrs.
Cañas intended to cause the complainant’s arrest because as the jeepney neared the police station,
Cañas asked the driver to stop the vehicle. She got off and called a policeman and had the
complainant Ben D. Marces arrested.

The arrest was made in the basis of alias warrants handed to the police by Mrs. Cañas. The warrants
were issued by MTCC Judge Edipolo Sarabia in 3 criminal cases against herein complainant for
violations of BP 22. Complainant was detained for one night without knowledge of his family.
Complainant saw Judge Sarabia and explained that the cases against him had long been amicably
settled. The judge told him that he did not really know anything about the cases and that he had only
been requested by respondent Judge Paul Arcangel to issue the warrants.

Cañas filed a case against complainant in the Barangay. Mediation conferences were conducted
between the two families. Although he had not been asked to, respondent Judge Arcangel attended
the conferences.
- walked in and out of the hall
- introduced himself as the executive Judge of RTC Davao in an attempt to influence the
barangay officials.
- accompanied Mrs. Cañas and acted as the baby sitter of the latter’s daughter.

The barangay officials failed to amicably settle the dispute. The feud between the families worsened. A
violent confrontation happened and as a result of which, parties were injured.

Armed men in uniform arrived in two military vehicles and arrested the members of complainant’s
family and took them to Davao Metrodiscom Headquarters. The arrests were made on orders of
certain Col. Nelson Estares. The investigating officer found probable cause and filed charges of
attempted murder against complainant, his wife and son. Complainant alleges that respondent Judge
took advantage of his position and influenced the conduct of the preliminary investigation. At the time
of applications for bail bond were being baing made, the respondent judge arrived and questioned the
validity of the bond posted.

Because of these events, complainant questioned the interest of the Judge in the dispute between the
2 families. All they knew was that Judge’s car was often parked in front of house of Mrs. Canas,
especially when Mr. Cañas was working away overtime.

COMMENT of respondent judge:

- charges are false, malicious and utterly baseless
- the same were filed merely to gratify complainant’s personal spite and animosity against
him
- complaint was filed in anticipation of the cases which the respondent intends to file against
the complainant for slander and threats.
 - The warrants were valid in connection with the pending cases against complainant which
could not be served due to complainant’s connections with the officers of the warrant
section.
- Denied that he acted as escort to Mrs. Cañas. He went to the Barangay to file his own
complaint against Ruth Marces and daughter Lydia.
- Denied that he has illicit relations with Mrs. Cañas. They are only business partners in the
manufacture of appliance protectors.

Report and Recommendation of Associate Justice Purisima: DISMISSAL of the charges for insufficiency
of evidence EXCEPT the charge that respondent judge attended the mediation conferences between
the feuding families and tried to intervene. Penalty: be admonished and sternly warned.

Issue: WON the respondent Judge is guilty of impropriety therefore violating the Code of Judicial
Conduct—YES.

Ruling:
The Court finds the conclusions of the investigator that respondent judge is guilty of improper conduct
to be fully supported by the evidence in the record. HOWEVER, the report of the investigating Justice
fails to consider other serious allegations in the complaint of which there is also sufficient evidence in
the record, to wit:
1.) caused the issuance of alias warrants of arrest by requesting another judge, before whom the
case against the complainant was pending
2.) Arrest would have not been made without the intervention of respondent judge.

These charges were actually admitted by respondent judge. The criminal cases against complainants
have been in archive since 1983. Its discovery and revival was made possible upon the request for
verification and its status and information by Judge Arcangel.

Respondent justifies his intervention on the ground that complainant Marces has been able to evade
service of the warrants because of connections with the warrant officers of Davao City. Even if this had
been the case, it would not excuse respondent judge in using his own influence.

Clearly, respondent intervened in the feud between the two families and such interference was not
limited to the barangay mediation proceedings but extended to various stages of the conflict. The
Court finds the actuations of the respondent judge improper and censurable.

Respondent is the visible representation of the law, the intermediary between conflicting
interest, and the embodiment of the people’s sense of justice. Unless it was a case filed
with his court, it was improper for him to intervene in a dispute or controversy.

Code of Judicial Conduct:

The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of
others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special
position to influence the judge.

He should not suffer his conduct to create the impression that any person can unduly influence him or
enjoy his favor.

The proper penalty for the respondent judge is only reprimand with warning. The court believes that
dismissal from service is an excessive penalty. They took into consideration the following:
- no other charge against respondent Judge
- first administrative case
- record as a judge is exemplary